Thanks to Mr. Tactful’s recent post on the V8 1995 Cougar, I thought it appropriate to mention this Thunderbird LX I spotted in downtown Moline a couple of weeks ago.

For 1996, the Thunderbird (and Cougar) received a final refresh, which included new rocker trim, wheels, and front and rear fascias. The attractive new dashboard added for 1994 remained. Although the V8 was still available, the SC was gone, having been retired after 1995.

One detail was a return to cursive script, a neat retro touch. I believe this was applied to the Taurus and other Ford models as well. One aesthetic issue that had been with the MN12 Thunderbird (and Cougar) since its release in 1989 was that although the car had what appeared to be full width tail lamps, only the extreme edges actually lit up at night. In 1992, the entire tail lamp illuminated, with the large center section using LEDs. This continued for the 1996 model year. The 1995-97 Lincoln Town Cars also had lighted center sections, so I guess the cost accountants were ignored once in a while.

I had just started to drive in late 1997, about a year and a half later than planned due to some health issues. I was well aware that 1997 was the last year for the T-Bird and Cougar (not to mention the last of the square Town Cars), so I wasted no time driving down to the local Ford and L-M dealerships to get the brochures on them before they were gone.

By the late Nineties the coupe market was shrinking drastically, and more and more folks who used to buy these cars were suddenly batting their eyes at Explorers and Mountaineers. The related Mark VIII managed to last one more year, and that was the end of Ford’s luxury coupes. Survivors like this LX prove that once upon a time, coupes were in and many happily roamed the land.

Edit: I was incorrect about the LED tail lights being new for 1996. Text has been amended to reflect their addition in 1992.

It may have been garaged for most of its life, but American makes last far longer in the salt if washed regularly than Japanese makes. The difference in rust on mid-late 1990s vehicles between the two is like night and day.

In the American Midwest and other places where road salt is applied liberally, the Japanese cars of the 1980s and 1990s rust out far quicker than their American counterparts. It took the Japanese automakers a while to figure out rustproofing. Mazda still has plenty of corrosion issues. See below:

I never realized that Ford upgraded the taillights to true full-width units on the last T-Birds. The reflectors always bothered me. ’90s Escorts had the same problem.

In fact, Ford was very cheap with taillights until just the last couple of years. One of the late-’90s decontenting stunts was to delete amber turn signals from, even on the Aerostar for one last year of production. This enabled Ford to use single-bulb housing instead of having a separate bulb for the signal. Look at almost every non-Mustang Ford vehicle from the ’00s and they still only use a single bulb. Cheap, cheap, cheap.

The tails were lit all the way across on the early Birds, maybe an option on later cars. A friend of mine is the original owner of a 92 Bird with working rear lights. The issue was that if the lights went out on the early cars the whole light panel had to be replaced.

Bird, Cougar,or Mark.. The MN12/FN10 was the last gasp of FoMoCo’s personal luxury coupes..

You could argue that the 2002-2005 Thunderbird was, if it weren’t for the ragtop-only configuration. The DEW was more or less a replacement for the MN12/FN10 – I believe the suspension setup was similar, probably more advanced, and V6 and V8 configurations were supported, but the DEW-based cars themselves ended up occupying different market positions than their MN/FN predecessors did, because there just wasn’t any demand for fixed hardtop, 2-door personal luxury coupes. (See also: Lexus SC300/400 to IS series and SC430.)

The DEW-based LS that more or less replaced the Mark VIII had potential – too bad Ford neglected it.

My father bought a LX new in 1989. I was in high school at the time and thought it was the coolest car around. Digital dash, RWD. The V6 was slow by today’s standards, but honestly it had good get-up-and-go for the time.

He drove that car for 7 years or so. It had its share of electrical gremlins, so I can see why they switched to analog guages on later models.

If I recall, the MN12 program was considered a failure at Ford as the cars came out much larger than they were initially intended to be. This meant the 3.8 V-6 was under powered for such a heavy car and led to the 5.0 being bodged in later, for which the platform was never designed.

A cool factoid is the 3.8 was a reverse engineered GM 3.8, right down to the disintegrating intake manifold gasket.

Was this a different 3.8 than the Cologne engine? Ford’s 3.8s always confused me. I understand that there was an Essex 3.8 too. I had an 86 Fox Marquis wagon with a 3.8 and a C-5 auto that was a nice driving car that ran well the entire time I had it. Lots of torque, but not so great gas mileage (and a horrible range with the wagon’s little 11 gallon tank).

I had a 95 T-bird LX as a daily driver in Chicago for about 4 years. It was a gold-ish tan color with a tan interior and a 3.8 V6. The engine ran good but it was slow. I loved the handling of the car despite the skinny 215/70/15 wheels and the crazy curb weight. The car had the automatic climate control system and power everything. The weight on the car was just crazy though. It weighed about 3600lbs unloaded. My 88 Thunderbird LX which has a 5.0 and every option available for 88 but a sun roof weighs 3560lbs. In a driving comparison between the two (not counting the fact that the 88 T-bird has a GT40 H/I 5.0) the Fox felt much more tossable than the MN-12. The weight of the car really killed it. Other than that I really enjoyed the car. I ended up getting rid of it about a year ago. At 90,000 miles the rockers were shot and the bottom of the doors were about falling off. It got replaced with a new Focus which, while nice, is not quite as nice as the MN-12.

I still have my Fox T-bird, which tells you which side of the MN-12/Fox battle I’m on…

I imagine that the reason that the T-bird and Cougar got the rear lights was because the Mark was already getting a rear lamp upgrade and the T-bird/Cougar was able to benefit from that on the cheap.

I liked these when the first came out, especially the digital-tastic LX Thunderbird, plus they still has some of the old school personal luxury coupe vibe in a modern package, they originally were never designed for a V8, but enough customers complained and Ford had to squeeze the 5.0 litre in there, they had to revise the intake to make it fit I recall.

The Cougars never got the LED taillight upgrade the Tbirds did in 1992, they only received styling refreshments to the reflector panel while retaining the outboard light only arrangement. The 92 Thunderbirds required a new trunklid with the center taillight mounting further recessed to fit the thicker housings. Developing a new trunklid for the Cougar was probably out of the question since it was already on its second styling cycle by 92 vs. the Tbirds first.

These models along with the Cougar are pretty much the cheapest vehicles you can buy in the used car market.

Nobody wants em’.

V6? Blows head gaskets.

V8? Abysmal fuel economy

Cloth interior? Typical downscale mid-90’s Ford quality.

Leather seats? Very tough to find and usually wear very badly.

Fuel economy? Abysmal no matter what configuration you choose.

A lot of these vehicles have very low odometer readings… because they typically stop working after eight or nine years. The door hinges sag. The paint wears out. The door and trunk moldings seem particularly vulnerable to anything that resembles heat.

It barely stops there. As many here have already hinted, you also have an interior that is as cheap looking as any Ford rental car special at the time. What’s worse is that a disproportionate number of the dashboards came in some rancid green, brown and blacks.

I would rather have a Beretta, Corsica, Skylark, Achieva, Monte Carlo or Avenger on my car lot than a Thunderbird. They are in essence an old person’s car with none of the quality that it would usually entail.

Along with the Astro, these have historically been the cheapest used cars you could buy on a per pound basis. If you do decide to keep one… make sure it’s a V8 and keep the paint well waxed. These models peel up like an old banana in Phoenix.

Fuel economy isn’t that bad, a 96 Tbird with a 4.6 is 18/23mpg vs. a same year Monte Carlo at 17/26mpg. It’s not getting Prius economy but it’s also not a Prius.

I wont argue about the rubberized trim and paint. The trim is obsoleted now and difficult to restore if it’s cracking, and certain colors, particularly the greens and reds seem to have serious peeling/fading issues. But frankly GMs and many other automakers of this vintage aren’t any better.

But the Beretta, Corsica, Skylark, Achieva, Monte Carlo and Avenger interiors make the Thunderbird interiors look like a Maybach! The interiors, particularly the 94-97 and especially SC interiors are probably the best points to the Thunderbirds of this era.

First, the 302 was only available from 1991-93. Then for 1994-97, the OHC 4.6 V8 installed. Also, the ‘cheap interiors’ were pre-1994, afterwards were updated and much better then tacky Berettas and Skylarks.

The MN-12 was overweight and the Project Manager was taken to task for it and ended up leaving Ford. He wanted “BMW-ness” and added weight for the IRS. Platform was designed in mid 80’s when coupes still sold well. But, Ford ended up not able to share the IRS with other cars. By mid 90’s, MN’s ended up as fleet queens, or heavily discounted/factory leases with low resale as a result.

I had an L-M dealer begging me to lease a Cougar vs a new 94 Stang. In long run, the old live axle car ended up living longer.

For those who are interested, there is an organization devoted to the MN12 cars, The Thunderbird and Cougar Club of America (TCCOA.COM). I had 2 Birds, a 90 Anniversary Edition and a 97 LX with a 4.6L V8. I found both leather interiors to be beautiful and the 90 with suede seat inserts and adjustable bolsters appeared quite upscale.
I have heard it said, on rare occasion, that BMW engineers served as consultants for the mechanical design of this car. This assertion is presented with either no or thin evidence. Does anyone here have any insight into the accuracy of this statement?

What an underrated and unappreciated series. For once Ford spent some money engineering a great chassis. Just compare it to the Mustang. Longer wheelbase wider track front subframe for the suspension and steering and amazingly enough IRS for every single car. A more spacious and luxurious interior. Unfortunately Ford built for a market that was disappearing. I bought a new Cougar in 94. ( my wife loved the knife edged formal roof and wire wheel caps). I had traded in my 77 Coupe de Ville. While there was no comparison I did like the smaller size and better fuel economy. These cars evolved over the next couple of models until they culminated in the legendary supercharged SuperCoupe and XR7. Personaly I would look for a T bird sport with a 4.6 and automatic or maybe the Cougar variant. Locally these cars have almost no demand or resale value compared to the Mustangs I currently have but I think that they would better fit my desire for American road car.